I do not believe there is any record of a specific number of threats given before a strike. It has become the rule in the past several years that there are at least several threats to a specific region before any strike. I think it is is a fair assumption to believe that where there are warnings, there will be a strike... if it is not broken up, but coming up with a specific number of threats before they come to pass is impossible.
Thanks for clarifying that. I think that the idiots will continuously spew vile messages in hopes of carrying out the big strike. I'd like to think that for every time they've made a threat, we've thwarted an attack. They just like bullying with terrible threats because it makes them feel macho. They're too stupid to plan as many attacks as we've had threats. Those who make idle threats just expose their own weakness.
I fear that we will never know the "when, where, what, or how" they will attack............all we know is the "why".
I'm glad to hear the concurrence. This is something that has been floating around. Time to rule it out as once and for all as an indicator for an attack window.
I agree, especially when they start the "last warning wasn't legitimate because we didn't issue it" crap.